Does the HADD hypothesis explains why making unfalsifiable claims on random things being secretly connected by a higher power is sometimes called religion and sometimes called evolutionary psychology ?
I appreciate the video. Nicely done. Although I'm not seeing the problem. There's biological capability and cultural reinforcement (confirmation) ... gene-meme interaction. A feed-back loop. I have flow diagrams if anyone is interested. ;)
Re -lig - ion Reg- ion Leg - ion Re- volut - ion In-vent- ion Where ;and when ; WAS this ..Ion ? Why were the upper portions of the heavens called , “ ion - o- sphere” Does it declare , “ Io - no - sphere “ ! Was it the place of Sion ; or Zion ? To go. Off-plane port? Consider Indus Valley Indus -tree A volute is a spiraling compressing configuration. There; was solut involut , etc. HERE was a portal to another plane.
www.thevolumesoftruth.com/Above_Reproach Thus says The Lord to His servant: My son, why do you question Me in this way? To question My servant is to question Me. Therefore listen and have understanding, that My will may be fulfilled in you. That which you call the Old Testament was indeed written through My servants and prophets of old, and all who were wise gave heed, obeying the writing thereof. Yet even then that which would come to be written in the New Testament already existed, awaiting the day I would send out My apostles and prophets to proclaim the Good News. Was it the Old Testament? No. It was the New Testament, never before seen, heard or published. And now the time has come for Me to send out My apostles and prophets once again, to announce My coming and to set all these crooked paths straight; behold, it is time to blow the Trumpet and prepare My way before Me. Does that which My messengers proclaim agree with the Bible? Yes. For the words in these Letters are My words; as are the words in your Bible My words, though they have been greatly misinterpreted and mistranslated by men. Therefore put no difference between them. For to reject any part of My Word is to reject the whole. I tell you the truth, the three books are one, one on-going testament to My glory. Thus much of what My servants proclaim, you have already heard. Yet they will also declare that which you have not heard (nor have you understood, because of man’s doctrine in you). Therefore, again I say to you, what My prophets of the end of this age write is indeed new to many, yet remains in perfect agreement with the prophets of old. For I do not change; I shall surely make My plans known.
From a believer's perspective HADD fits with the idea that there is intentionality on the part of God to be known by us. "You have made us for yourself o God and our hearts are restless until they rest in You" (Augustine)
This sounds a little bit similar to the idea of Sensus Divinitatis by John Calvin and used by Alvin Plantinga. Here are two links some video clips about this, that might interest you. ruclips.net/video/lro05RvPMkE/видео.html ruclips.net/video/lro05RvPMkE/видео.html
Everything can fit with God. That’s the reason it’s not a good theory. “You can’t explain that!” always becomes “Of course God did it like that!” once we do. And that can be done for any unexplained thing, really.
@wearealltubes" I have not created the Jinn and Mankind, except to worship me " Then, there is a hadith qudsi that goes something like " I was a hidden Treasure I desired to be recognized so I created the creature" . : کنت کنزاً مخفیاً فأحببت أن أعرف فخلقت الخلق لکی أعرف. Just what I have read. Sufism has used it a lot in their texts.
Never have I wanted to subscribe and like a RUclips channel more than I have yours. I know you are also an academic with all of the demands that come with it (lectures, classes, research, publication, dissertation students), but you are doing good work here. Bringing religious literacy to the table is essential for us to claw our way out of this mess. Please continue! And at an alarming rate!
This is a great channel, and very underrated. I've always been interested in religion and I'm glad there is someone who makes such high quality videos on these subjects.
*+ReligionForBreakfast* A point of criticism about 8:48-9:10 Yes, obviously..cultural learning mechanisms are VERY important in shaping the content and place where religious form. That's not the claim of HADD either (i.e. it doesn't claim to describe how it happens, just suggests that HADD is at the forefront for the entire process, it allows it 'to go'). That's not a real argument against what HADD. That counter argument to HADD is, I think, akin to saying: "the shape, slope, and surrounding features of the land (like reefs, rocks, islands, etc.), the trajectory of the ocean currents, and the force and direction of the wind are the factors that determine what the waves will look like, what direction they go, the height they will have and other things. Therefore we can brush away the moon and tidal currents as contributing to the explanation of the movements of seas and oceans." I think it's missing the point entirely. I see it as HADD opening the door for personal/chance interpretations and other larger social forces (both in the moment and over looong stretches of time) to either discount/explain away or run with those HADD experiences. We certainly don't know how it all works, and I think focussing too much on those neuro-studies is going to be a red herring. We might see where it starts to happen, but locking people up in an ƒMRI for the entirely of belief-forming that can take quite long it's going to be practical. And to some extent, even if/when those devices become tiny and portable, you can only see where it happens - that doesn't necessarily tell you (why or) how it happens _like_ that.
Granted to all of that. But the reason I'm excited about the progress happening with the neuroscience of religion (not just *adoption* but continued *adherence* to beliefs) is that once we know the exact mechanism and process by which a person chooses emotional satisfaction from sticking with happy memories vs embracing the new and unknown based on objective evidence, then we can explore how to shape experiences scientifically so that people can be incentivized to think rationally. Taken to the next level, we could develop a cure for irrationality!
I don't think Durkheim can really account for religion either, though. Religion is not just a communal experience; in some ways it is deeply individual. Durkheim certainly explains much of how organised religion and religious communities develop, but he doesn't have any way to account for religious Inspiration, which often flies directly in the face of organised religion. The basic intuitions that often guide religion do seem to have something more than a purely social origin.
If he's correct, that explains inspiration as a simple epiphany. Your imaginary friend gave you really good advice, in other words. It's a moving experience to hear the ultimate knowledge from the ultimate boss of the universe, and you just happen to be his best friend.
@@haywardjeblomey6505 But Durkheim doesn't really have any way of accounting for epiphany, that's the problem. Structuralism can only account for what we do with epiphany (viz. interpreting it within a religious framework). It's reductive to suggest that religion comes about as the result of social interaction and the creation of community when there are clear counterexamples. I'd posit that it's actually more hylomorphic, with both upward and downward causality.
@@Salsmachev You don't know where epiphany comes from? It comes from memory (experience) and the processing of those memories through other emotional states. One can never come to the correct conclusion if they don't have the experience of knowing the proposition, for example.
@@haywardjeblomey6505 I don't think we actually have any substantive disagreement here. Epiphanies, according to your explanation of them, are not consistent with a wholly structuralist/Durkheimian account of religion.
Oh! This was very interested! I myself have no actual knowledge in regards to the cognitive sciences inspired religious studies field, this has been very fun to watch.
An excellent video as always! I love how you're able to explain things in an understandable way for the general public without sacrificing the complexity of these topics. Usually people on youtube focus just on one side of the argument, but you always give an explanation of both sides, even in such a short video. I really appreciate all the work you do!
People who have never had a paranormal experience cannot fathom what it's like to have one. I can tell you from years of experiences that these phenomena exist. I consider myself an educated person, a pretty rational one at that (and, no, I do NOT do drugs). My encounters with the paranormal on numerous occasions rocked me to the core, and made me realise that whatever I was denying existed is not only real but quite earth-shattering. My whole outlook on this subject has completely turned my world upside down.
As an atheist who tried a catholic prayer practice, I have this hunch that there is utility in relating to the chaos of the world in an anthropomorphized manner. It felt strangely natural and it kind of made it easier to pay attention to subtle "responses of the world" to your own actions.
I think that's such an interesting overlap between pareidolia and confirmation bias, because it only appears once you prime yourself to look for these communications. You see a similar pattern with the concepts of synchronicity and manifestation.
Loved this video! Could you do a video on the history of marriage in religion? I read an article for my sociology class that claims for the first 500-1000 years of Christianity the religion rejected the concept as "tainted and secular," and didn't adopt it as sacrament until 1215. I don't know if there is any truth to this, but I thought you might have some knowledge on the subject. Thanks!
I find that psychologists and other scientists often overlook aspects of culture which are integral to understanding things like religion. This is why it's important for people discussing these theories to be deeply grounded in religious studies and history more generally. I'm glad you pointed to that in this video
Psychology isn't the science that has traditionally accounted for culture and religion. In fact, clinical psych has had to find ways of accommodating things like cultural norms in a fairly ad hoc manner in more recent decades. But in practice, a good clinical psychologist will handle those issues well as part of cultural competency. That said, the psychology of religion is a valuable research area into itself which I personally feel is ripe for some major new research developments.
I also wonder how this theory might relate to the tendency for young children to invent "invisible friends" or pretend that their stuffed animals and dolls have personality and are talking to them and the children talk to these inanimate objects? Basically, belief in invisible supernatural beings (spirits, ghosts, gods, angels, demons...) is an extension of the tendency of young children to have "invisible friends". Freud's theory holds that this is exactly what is going on: belief in a god is an "infantile neurosis" - adults acting like children, being attached to God as an invisible friend. So, question of cause and effect: is the idea of God merely an extension of the childhood tendency to invent imaginary friends? Or do chidren "invent" these imaginary friends because the mind of a child actually is more open to perceiving the real existence of these invisible beings? Might it be that religious skeptics lose this childlike innocence due to an overly logical mind?
I've heard of this one before I liked your retelling of the lesson I also liked your personal touch, as you mention your own persuasion that Religion is a social construct. Good to enter the dirt and stake your own claim!
Great channel, definitely deserves more subscribers. Here are my views on what you said. I agree with you that HADD isn't the end of the story but it definitely is an important part. I think HADD + Abstract Thinking, together with some other social facts (like social identity) can easily explain how religions can develop.
This is awesome!!! Thanks so much for exploring religion in the mind as well as in the brain. I hope you'll find a way to BRIDGE the social and hard sciences to show where in the brain and in the genes our loyalty to community, rituals, etc. play out. Eg., amygdala and DRD4 gene.
I can't find the original source, but I recall seeing an article that said that organized religions tend to form when the population of a group exceeds one million people. This would seem to fit with the social aspect proposed here.
I mean the first organised religions that we have evidence for came about in cities with populations between ten and twenty thousand, so a million seems rather too high a number
These actually sound like 2 different things. Like when people do stuff together in a community with a sense of belonging. That would be interesting to study biologically because it can happen even in the absence of belief in the supernatural.
Maybe as humans moved into settlements in the Neolithic, those cultural methods slowly changed from fear of predators to storytelling which was passed down over the millennia. Pantheons usually reflect the social status of society. So if you have a hunter-gatherer tribe of a couple dozen people, spiritualism might make sense; likewise, if you have a budding empire from a city-state with a king, it makes sense that the gods would have particular identities with control and hierarchy. This would also explain the slow formalization and stratification seen in religions and the usage of kings to represent themselves as divine as they likened themselves to gods.
2:45 Specifically, "jumpy, superstitious" hominids survived more often than "rational, atheist" hominids. 8:02 Meld superstition with a social creature that has a brain with a *lot* of interconnections and religion is one of the things that emerge?
Hypothesis: Religion began as a recursive psychosocial phenomena starting with HADD in a small group of humans, but continued into cultural learning mechanisms when these humans taught other humans, like their children, which evoked HADD and informed how later humans experience and understand it. Transferred or was connected from threat detection to anthropomorphizing via placation behavior- leaving or offering a predator meat to avoid becoming its prey. This relationship influences the CLMs of the society, and is anthropomorphized as rational behavior on the part of the predator since it appears to be following a social construct like trade. This again enters the CLMs and the idea of placating or bargaining with other HADD instances not so directly attributed to predators begins to manifest in the psychological conditioning of the society.
As a curious coincidence (Or maybe not), the analogy of the ghost being the coats' rack is very similar to a Buddhist one. This one is about being in a house without light and seeing a snake on the floor. But you take a candle and see it was just a rope. The analogy is to illustrate that nothing in Samsara can hurt us and hence we are just mistaking a rope with a snake. I am a Buddhist, but i do have to say that if we try to apply this from a secular-practical point of view then it's not only useless, but kinda dangerous. I find that funny.
Amazing stuff! Please keep exploring neuroscience and cognitive psychology as it connects with religion. This is exciting! The big question that arises here is: where in the brain are "Cultural leaning mechanisms" happening? Also, agency detection might explain *adoption* of religious beliefs, but what about *maintaining* religious beliefs and doubling down when presented with conflicting evidence? How do the social sciences explore adherence and submission to group think? In neuro, it's all about the power of the amygdala..... Thanks again!
I'm not very religious but the Lord's prayer helps me calm down when my anxiety is at its worse. It is very interesting how that is hard wired into my inner self. Probably has something to do with me learning it as a child and me finding comfort in it now that I'm older. Either way I'm glad it works when I need it the most.
Alejandro Guerra Villegas Using Ockham’s razor it’s absurdly unlikely to think every single person who has seen a ghost was mistaken. It is assumed to be impossible, then other often unlikely explanations are looked for.
I believe the paintings and other depictions of human/animal beings made by early humans are better explained by trance states, dreams, etc. And I agree with your friend: religion is a complex issue and I believe complex issues have complex origins. Both biological and cultural influences must play a part in it. On a personal note, I anthropologize my computer, and he definitively has a mind of his own. I talk to him often, shout at him and shake my fist at it, but he still does his own thing. Maybe a nice offering would change the tide in my favor? Here's a thought!
I always understood that idea as an explanation of how belief in the supernatural got started, NOT as an explanation of why we have world religions. At best, how we got beliefs in the first gods. Everything after that is clearly a social (and sometimes even intentional) phenomenon, that may get bolstered by the original thing, but involves much more (especially childhood indoctrination). Though I have to say, arguing that religious people are more likely to make this misattribution is a counter-argument seems to me a bit absurd, as that is exactly what I would expect to see if the theory is correct. People more likely to commit this misattribution would thereby more likely to assume they had found support for their religion, thus making it more likely for them to commit to their religion. Now I wouldn't expect a huge difference there, but that's certainly the result I'd expect.
There's substantial scientific evidence that how religious or spiritual someone or a group is largely boils down to genetics. Of course culture and upbringing influences what particular religion you tend to believe in, but whether or not a person is religious/spiritual at all mainly comes do to genetics.
There is also a hardwired tendency to discern faces in a jumble of visual features, or even static. It causes us to see patterns, even though we know there is no face and no organization actually present. Look at a cloud, haven't you ever seen a bunny rabbit? This evolved in the same way as the HADD you mentioned, and is further enhanced by social pressures to see and understand expressions. The "face" of the Man in the Moon is a perfect example, and the Moon was often regarded as a god in early societies. So, there is the mechanism needed to go from fearing sneaky tigers and ghosts to fearing capricious gods. None of this, however, can disprove the notion that a God actually does exist, and has created a finely tuned Cosmos, designed to evolve intelligent life with religious tendencies.
Actually I first learned the legend of the rabbit on the Moon and for a long time I never saw "the man on the Moon", I used to see a rabbit. The first time I saw a human face on the moon was after a documentary talking about that when I was already an adult. Now about what you mentioned, I think the HADD is a very poor explanation for the development of beliefs, it could be a factor, but I see things like introspection/meditation and philosophy as something essential for religions, not just giving random names and faces (and that's in addition to the part about social norms already described on the video).
Of course it cannot disprove an unfalsifiable God concept like the one you describe. There is no way to observe a universe and intelligently determine that it isn’t fit for intelligent life, so that isn’t surprising at all for that to be the case. As always happens, we come up with an explanation for the huge influence religion has besides it not being true, but it still doesn’t matter, because there is always something we cannot explain, isn’t there?
2:40 - There actually is the major downside of just loss of potential energy (your senses & co-ordination device - i.e. your brain, are power hungry). Then you also just have the lack of ability to think of other things. Think of novellists or engineers, etc. going for a walk in the woods to clear their heads or just walk & think. I can easily imagine the probably thousands of times someone has wanted to/just gone to walk in the woods to think through something, from couplings & children & marriages (forced or proposed) to how can I plant my crops better.
Spinoza had a similar theory about organized religion as being caused by improper identification of final causality in natural phenomena. Although Spinoza never implied that judging natural events as having finality is part of some natural human cognitive behavior, he sees it as a vice that ultimately leads to moral servitude.
I think HADD explains the physical basis for religion pretty well, it's a mechanism that became useful for society building reasons and made it more likely that people believe in certain flavours (like personalised gods rather than generic power)
@@daddyleon I think social influences have become important over time. However, they didn't seem too important in the first religions. For example, the Mesopotamians pretty much thought of themselves made to be the slaves of the gods while the Ancient Egyptian temples were mainly just for the priests. Commoners rarely went to temples. It wasn't like a place of worship of today. On the other hand, it's definitely not just HADD because humans believed objects like the Sun were gods. Sure, the Sun moves around in the sky. However, you aren't going to get a glimpse of the Sun out of the corner of your eye and think it was a person. I think the answer is closer to a little girl talking to a doll like its a real person or even having an imaginary friend. However, I really don't think the social aspect played that large of a role.
@@lukeeckstein3498 Sorry, I don't understand, could try and explain how the Mesopotamian/Egyptian societies didn't influence their citizens while their societies were very different and the people within the societies did share quite some beliefs - ifaik, at least.
@@daddyleon Oh boy, I'm not saying that societies didn't influence their citizens. They certainly did. I'm just saying there wasn't as much of a communal aspect to the religions of the past like there is today. For example, people today might go to church or a bible study. This may give the appearance that communal activity is important in religion. Which it may be today, but not in the past. In ancient Egypt you didn't get people going to the temple every week.
@@lukeeckstein3498 Sorry I still really don't understand. Perhaps it's because I'm not a native speaker? You mean societies that build pyramids and ziggurats weren't really into communal religion? Sure, now we have bible studies, madrassas, etc. But that doesn't mean that society, the 'priestly class', and the zeitgeist explanations for HADD didn't have a major influence.
Great video, 1 disagreement. The theory isn’t really designed to explain how religion works, it only hypothesises towards why religions begin to develop and why there is a notion of the supernatural in human cultures. Expecting the theory to also explain why religion socially operates as it does is like expecting evolution to account for the movement of the planets, then saying evolution has flaws cause it can’t account for elliptical orbits.
Animals has HADD too, but I don't think they are religious. But we differ from other animals that we have a much deeper understanding of the future and the past, so we can ask ourselfs "What hapens after we died?" etc. Then we make up answers which becomes a part of our culture.
That and the ability to communicate abstract concepts, which I think is the major criterion for culture. AFAIK only orcas can do this outside humans, and the scientific literature describes them as having cultures.
Love you and your channel. Sounds to me that cultural forces amplify the inherent individual HADD neurophysiological tendencies. Greetings from Ireland. ❤️👍🏻👌☘️🇮🇪
Another try at showing why this theory only makes sense in the context of the scientistic belief system: I did my first programming course in 1968. During my career in the field, I developed a sympathetic understanding of the difference between a machine and the instructions that make it work. Anyone who has stared at a computer screen, trying to figure out how to make the thing do something, will tell you that the machine alone is not sufficient. But you can see in this video that the scientistic belief system does not allow for this. Somehow, if you can point to some part of the machine as being involved in an activity, you have explained how it is performed. Once you stop doing this, you will see that the amount of programming that exists in living systems is truly phenomenal. For instance, did you know that migratory birds have four different navigation systems, and that the designers of the systems that are used for navigating modern jets can't match their accuracy? Where did this programming come from? The idea that it arose by natural selection from chance mutations is only plausible to those who are deeply ensnared by scientism. Others might think it laughable. Oh, and the values of a number of astrophysical constants are so uncannily what they need to be for us to be here that physicists have had to invent a by definition unprovable multi universe theory to avoid acknowledging the involvement of a conscious designer, or should I say Designer. And then you could look at the joint probability that life emerged from lifeless chemistry. Rather less than the chance that a single atom could be located in the entire universe. And so on, and so on. It is time to move beyond Darwinism. But it is in the nature of all believers to cling to their beliefs, and to persecute those who try to change them. So we are stuck with videos like this, instead of simply acknowledging the truth. A creator does exist.
Thank you. This is a topic I’ve long considered and wondered about. I have my own theories that are too long to express, but it’s good to learn about other people’s concepts.
Trouble with your counter to this theory is it suffers from sample bias. You are more likely to believe what people around you believe because that belief is more common in that area, by definition…
Nah, like most things due to the neuroplasticity of our brains, religion is softwired. Little things are hardwired, like the ability to feel heat, reflexes, nausea, etc...
Yeah, I know how you feel. One way to say it diplomatically would be to compare it to love. Loving someone has a neuro-chemical basis too baked into our brain from evolution. But that fact doesn’t negate the meaning and importance in loving someone. Same goes with religion.
@@ReligionForBreakfast it doesnt even negate the existance of objective love or an objective divine/God or anything really. As someone in the comment section noted, religious beliefs being hardwired inside us coincides with '' intentionality on the part of God to be known by us.''
time stamp 9:00-9:25: that we LEARN to be religious (and more specifically, WHICH religion) clearly is linked to being raised with religion - people do tend to follow the religion that their parents taught them or to not be religious if their parents were not religious. HOWEVER, what might account for the exceptions to this? Especially when those exceptions occur in the same family - e.g. siblings raised the same way with regard to religion who end up going in the opposite direction as adults - they either convert to a religion that is very different from the one they are raised with or those raised with religion, become atheists or those raised without religion have some sort of "conversion experience" that results in them becoming religious.
Also, pareidolia and our ability to have imaginary conversations with others( often times arguments we have in the shower) definitely add to the picture.
i think... both of these theories make an amount of sense, but i don’t think either is the full story. life is hard. i think religion arose because it gave ancient people a way to understand and try to control the chaotic, mysterious, and often dangerous world around them, and because it gave solace and a sense of purpose in times of tragedy. it filled (and still fills) a need, and society and the human brain empowered it.
ALways thought that the need to believe in the afterlife as a way to cope with death anxiety in recently self-aware primitive humas and common practices like talking to the dead after they´ve passed were the "why" and the "how" at the bassis of the formation of early religious rituals and beliefs and the first deities. This video is more about the pre-dispositions that enabled those practices and the creation of deities that would explain forces of nature and random uccurrences. So interesting.
Excellent job and man, you did this 3 years ago... The temporal and amygdala; it sounds like identifying (agency) to mediate a fear, gain control, as you summed up in the beginning. The ability for agency I think is a value free judgement. I mean, would our neurology be particular whether you imagine someone behind a tree or a god in the sky? Great examination... Thank you
I think the origin of religion has everything to do with what makes us different to other animals. Because while intelligent animals like dogs may have HADD and societal cues/obligations, they don’t have art or religion. What exactly makes us different from animals that allows us to think abstractly?
@Magdalena Ray We simply have the brainpower for it, and the parts of our brains handling rational decisions have become proportionally larger relative to the rest of the brain. Complicated language probably led to our ability to think abstractly too as we needed to think in those terms more and more to communicate efficiently. Needing to convey future events and hypotheticals let us think in those terms too.
I think that to anthropomorphize natural phenomena was their scientific approach to stuff. e.g. Violence is like tiger, must beware of tiger, must beware of tiger in people (violence in people). Tiger as a 'god' would be actually a way of thinking of "a natural principle not binded by tiger..". I think the spiritual is a model for similarities between observable phenomena.
A second step towards religion/mysticism would be: e.g. there is a tiger person (violence) principle around there. It is not bound by an object, by people or animal. It can manifest when you least expect (a tree falling over someone and killing). Let's friggin respect 'tiger person' (let's beware of violence)
Excellent insights! Thanks! My question now, is where do these impulses / needs / decisions take place within the brain! I want to see a timeline of which areas are stimulated in which order, to get an understanding of the true difference between the believer and the skeptic.
I was just listening to Daniel Kahneman cite the theory of biologically wired religion tendencies in Thinking, Fast and Slow last week. Thanks for giving this idea some more context!
this explains conspiracy theories too. whether there is a hardwired tendency to assemble cognitive perceptions into complex structures (early Chomsky), this is how language is learned - and religion is encoded in language. as we are increasingly isolated from actual natural threats, the mind wanders....
Orthodox Christian here: I am sure that a lot of religious experiences are of psychological and evolutionary nature, but however our faith is not built on that. There’s quite a considerable difference between what I sometimes experience during prayer or liturgy and what my faith is built upon
I wouldn't say it "doesn't hold water" he even quotes a colleague "it is important for the history of religion [...]". I'd rather say it explains the origin of the tendencies (a framework of sort) that "are made use of" later during cultural interactions to conceive of gods we traditionally find in religions.
it's dark when i go by bicycle to work every morning. and today i saw at least three people on the road. they turned out to be a shrub, a switch board, and a garbage bin. But for a split second they me brain saw them as human figures, and drew my attention to them. this was H.A.D.D in action and i think the darkness supercharged it so conclusions about what shapes in the dark were was made before i had time to analyze them
It held undertones of imperialism as well as racial and cultural superiority - he was less racist than most for his day but he was a product of his time and, as such, used the language and concepts of his time. It doesn't make him a bad person, just like our subconscious acceptance of our societies' norms doesn't necessarily make us bad though our culture will outgrow them as we understand them better.
I'm not an expert on 19th century terminology but was it not the case that the term "Savages" had negative connotations? In his time it definitely wasn't seen as "racist" since the negativity that we associate with such thinking hadn't gained as much traction as it does now. Looking back at the usage of this terminology, it's pretty clear that it was used in many racist contexts.
@@azn3000 There was at least one very popular book glorifying savages (forgot the title). Yes they thought that they needed they souls to be saved, but many admired that lifestyle.
@@betepolitique4810 I'm saying that it was. It absolutely was. Not as much, or in the same way, but it definitely was. Edit: The French use of the term had fewer negative connotations, this might be the source of confusion.
Well done. 1 Thought: H.A.D.D. with regards to the predators hinges on the fact that there were actual predators. The hyperactivity is caused by previous real and dangerous experiences. For it to be applied to "seeing gods everywhere", there must have been a real and dangerous "god-experience" to begin with or do they mean to say the lack of a predator then caused the believe in some other invisible "agent". This is then nothing more than the so-called "god-of-the-gaps" theory. I'd rather consult C.G.Jung (evolutionary Psychologist!!) on all of this.
Take his example of when the wind blows open a door and someone assuming it is a person opening the door. The threat is not real but the person perceives it as a threat or at least as another person. Apply this logic to ancient peoples, many of whom had very little to no understanding of natural phenomenons, and you can see how these superstitions arise. Religions can come about later as groups form and beliefs about these occurrences are shared. These groups developed various ways to combat and petition to these perceived humanlike threats, one common example being animal sacrifice.
@@whatwecalllife7034 So it's basically the "god-of-the-gaps" theory, except that it's linked to a "predator awareness" in animals, not explaining how the "awareness" of a possible predator turned into the "awareness" of a god. It could maybe lead to "awareness" of a devil: fear caused by the imitation of predators, or fear itself. That makes sense, a devil-of-the-gaps theory. The definition of the devil becomes... wait for it... ignorance.
@@ABird971 Where in there did you see anything about "god of the gaps"? Where in there did I mention anything about "predator awareness"? What about what I typed was unclear for you?
@@whatwecalllife7034 If I understood you correctly you just tried to reiterated the H.A.D.D. idea the way you understood it. Do you know the "god-of-the-gaps" theory? What you said is nothing more than that. I think H.A.D.D. is trying to make clearer, the connection between the "god-of-the-gaps" theory and evolutionary psychology. But like ReligionForBreakfast, I don't buy it. Also: the assumption that ancient people had "little to no understanding of natural phenomenons", is a fallacy. Rather modern-day city people have little- to no understanding of natural phenomenA. Evolutionary psychology has come much further than these kindergarten ideas. ;)
@ABird971 We developed hyperactive agent detection because of predators. Then, we detected agents way more than necessary, including to explain natural phenomena, which led to gods. It was still an evolutionary advantage overall, just with an additional side effect that didn’t really hurt us that much when we made our gods bigger and bigger to fit with any reality.
”The first man was foremost humble when he created the flute. The music that come out of it he didn’t want to attach to himself. For he wasn’t himself at that time. He only was. So when the listeners asked him “who created that music? It was wonderful!” He answered “ it was not me who made it. It was something else. Someone else come inside me. It was god.””
I think reducing religion to just names and faces is an error, so HADD is a very poor explanation. Not just because the social aspect explained in the video but also because philosophy and meditation(praying is considered one form of meditation) are important parts of any religion and cannot be explained by HADD (if anybody thinks praying is just asking the gods for favors, that totally misses the point). I think HADD may have contributed to giving faces to the and personalities to the deities or other mythological creatures, but that's just like the facade of religions, not the essence.
I don't think it matters that HADD doesn't explain religious philosophy because philosophy is a different activity that often doesn't have anything to do with religion. It makes perfect sense that, once religion came into being, it became a topic of discussion by philosophers (just like everything else), and that some philosophers integrated religion into their philosophy since it was so important to them or tried to use philosophy to justify their religion. However, I think you are right that HADD doesn't explain where meditative practices come from. They seem to be central aspects of pretty much every religion, so a good theory of where religion comes from should explain them as well. There is most likely no single psychological or sociological cause that can explain why religion exists - it comes from a combination of factors.
I don't think the counterpoint studies hold water in this scenario. Modern people are indoctrinated with a "placeholder religion" of materialism and logical explanations for phenomena from an early age. Prehistoric people did not have this modern cultural tradition. Besides, just because the details of a religious tradition need to be taught, it doesn't follow that religion is wholly taught as a behavior. HADD stands as a clue that the brain has mechanisms eager to participate in a religious practice, mechanisms that existed for a very long time. Whether these mechanisms are responsible for the emergence of early religion or not, it does suggest that the human brain is indeed "hardwired" for religion in a real sense.
I think this has to do more with our ability to see patterns rather well and an imagination rooted in our frame of reference/circumstance/situation as well as learned beliefs/ideas. So I agree.
I know that's it's a baseless assumption but religions have only been observed and practiced by humans, and they develop as civilizations do. I don't know, wouldn't make it easy to say that the more advanced civilization is, the more religion is very integral to it? (Although the term religion is loosely defined and interpreted.)
My personal theory addendum: One thing that is missing here is that while humans have a tendency to attribute agency and anthropomorphize random occurrences, animals definitely do have agency. While not necessarily thinking like us, we still attribute them our own ways of thinking. The first religious practices were probably related to interacting with these animals in a generalized, abstract manner to get the outcome we wanted. Like trying to appease the spirit of the horse so that it would allow our hunters to catch horses. Since humans tend toward positive correlation becoming causation, people naturally decided that these rituals work as advertised, and so it became socially acceptable, even expected to do them. With time, this has been slowly expanding to give socially accepted agency to more abstract phenomena and creating rituals to engage in social conduct with them. There is an old theory that cave paintings were a form of ritual intended to show the desired outcome of an action and by that make it more likely to succeed. Obviously this is a big generalization, but perhaps some of them actually were a form of influencing these unseen agents.
I think there is a bit of equivocation going on. Two different questions are being explored: 1. What is the best predictor of individual, specific religious beliefs? (culture, duh!) 2. Why do religions tend to develop among groups of people? (HADD seems like a good candidate)
We also anthropomorphize the theory of evolution. When people describe the mechanics of the theory, the rhetoric many people use implies intentionality.
This reminds me of Theo Jansen, a kind of contemporary Da Vinci, who makes wind powered walking machines out of pvc pipe structures. The randomness of the wind creates the illusion that those machines have agency, that they walk or stop on their own will, it's easy to adopt the utterly irrational idea that they're living beings.
This is a very interesting analysis of the phenomenon, but I think in addition to mentioning the influence of people around us, there is an important factor not to forget and it's the way young people in many conservative religious societies having their minds "programmed" to record and register religious formulas and apply them robotically at a very early age. These young people, develop that religious robotic attitude all throughout their life and it becomes as something difficult to get detached from. But indeed some will succeed to do so. I read an article once about how professionals in scientific fields could still have religious reflexes and beliefs in religious societies that contrast and contradict their rational daily work and expertise. It seems as if the emotional side of the brain was trained at an early age to register and defend emotional formulas independently from the rational side? The way religious people act and defend emotionally their faith feels to me more like when someone is blindly in love. The difference is that its a long consistent state of being in love? Could it be that this is more responsible for the perseverance of religious beliefs than the interesting and reasonable mentioned factors?
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
H.A.D.DOUKEN
Morpheus Seashellsbytheseashorepheus
Does the HADD hypothesis explains why making unfalsifiable claims on random things being secretly connected by a higher power is sometimes called religion and sometimes called evolutionary psychology ?
I appreciate the video. Nicely done. Although I'm not seeing the problem. There's biological capability and cultural reinforcement (confirmation) ... gene-meme interaction. A feed-back loop.
I have flow diagrams if anyone is interested. ;)
Re -lig - ion
Reg- ion
Leg - ion
Re- volut - ion
In-vent- ion
Where ;and when ; WAS this ..Ion ?
Why were the upper portions of the heavens called , “ ion - o- sphere”
Does it declare , “ Io - no - sphere “ !
Was it the place of Sion ; or Zion ?
To go.
Off-plane port?
Consider Indus Valley
Indus -tree
A volute is a spiraling compressing configuration.
There; was solut
involut , etc.
HERE was a portal to another plane.
ruclips.net/video/g8rx_SDeaao/видео.html
Plot twist: there WAS a spirit haunting Darwin's umbrella
No, he didn't train his dog properly so it barked at anything.
Is video seems question begging
It was the spirits of all the turtles he eated
@@narrelleweir6383 Pretty sure that was just a joke, my guy.
The vsauce of religion right here. Even kinda sounds like him.
He doesn't enunciate like an idiot tho
He should edit his videos and scripts the same way :D
lemme guess, his name is Gabriel. Brother of Michael?
www.thevolumesoftruth.com/Above_Reproach
Thus says The Lord to His servant: My son, why do you question Me in this way? To question My servant is to question Me. Therefore listen and have understanding, that My will may be fulfilled in you.
That which you call the Old Testament was indeed written through My servants and prophets of old, and all who were wise gave heed, obeying the writing thereof. Yet even then that which would come to be written in the New Testament already existed, awaiting the day I would send out My apostles and prophets to proclaim the Good News. Was it the Old Testament? No. It was the New Testament, never before seen, heard or published.
And now the time has come for Me to send out My apostles and prophets once again, to announce My coming and to set all these crooked paths straight; behold, it is time to blow the Trumpet and prepare My way before Me.
Does that which My messengers proclaim agree with the Bible? Yes. For the words in these Letters are My words; as are the words in your Bible My words, though they have been greatly misinterpreted and mistranslated by men. Therefore put no difference between them. For to reject any part of My Word is to reject the whole. I tell you the truth, the three books are one, one on-going testament to My glory.
Thus much of what My servants proclaim, you have already heard. Yet they will also declare that which you have not heard (nor have you understood, because of man’s doctrine in you). Therefore, again I say to you, what My prophets of the end of this age write is indeed new to many, yet remains in perfect agreement with the prophets of old. For I do not change; I shall surely make My plans known.
@@toddyahushua7972 Cool story, bro.
"It was only the wind. You've been hadd!"
Must've been the wind.... For King and Country!!!
Then took an arrow in the knee
Why I read this in Johnatan Frakes voice?
From a believer's perspective HADD fits with the idea that there is intentionality on the part of God to be known by us. "You have made us for yourself o God and our hearts are restless until they rest in You" (Augustine)
I like that. Might be the basis for a cognitive theology of some sort. Seminary dissertation topic?
This sounds a little bit similar to the idea of Sensus Divinitatis by John Calvin and used by Alvin Plantinga. Here are two links some video clips about this, that might interest you. ruclips.net/video/lro05RvPMkE/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/lro05RvPMkE/видео.html
The muslims believe that God wanted to be known and this is the reason to create human beings.
Everything can fit with God. That’s the reason it’s not a good theory. “You can’t explain that!” always becomes “Of course God did it like that!” once we do. And that can be done for any unexplained thing, really.
@wearealltubes" I have not created the Jinn and Mankind, except to worship me " Then, there is a hadith qudsi that goes something like " I was a hidden Treasure I desired to be recognized so I created the creature" .
: کنت کنزاً مخفیاً فأحببت أن أعرف فخلقت الخلق لکی أعرف.
Just what I have read. Sufism has used it a lot in their texts.
Never have I wanted to subscribe and like a RUclips channel more than I have yours. I know you are also an academic with all of the demands that come with it (lectures, classes, research, publication, dissertation students), but you are doing good work here. Bringing religious literacy to the table is essential for us to claw our way out of this mess. Please continue! And at an alarming rate!
This is a great channel, and very underrated. I've always been interested in religion and I'm glad there is someone who makes such high quality videos on these subjects.
YOU ARE SO UNDERRATED TO THE POINT WHERE I FEEL BAD
*+ReligionForBreakfast* A point of criticism about 8:48-9:10
Yes, obviously..cultural learning mechanisms are VERY important in shaping the content and place where religious form. That's not the claim of HADD either (i.e. it doesn't claim to describe how it happens, just suggests that HADD is at the forefront for the entire process, it allows it 'to go'). That's not a real argument against what HADD. That counter argument to HADD is, I think, akin to saying:
"the shape, slope, and surrounding features of the land (like reefs, rocks, islands, etc.), the trajectory of the ocean currents, and the force and direction of the wind are the factors that determine what the waves will look like, what direction they go, the height they will have and other things. Therefore we can brush away the moon and tidal currents as contributing to the explanation of the movements of seas and oceans."
I think it's missing the point entirely. I see it as HADD opening the door for personal/chance interpretations and other larger social forces (both in the moment and over looong stretches of time) to either discount/explain away or run with those HADD experiences.
We certainly don't know how it all works, and I think focussing too much on those neuro-studies is going to be a red herring. We might see where it starts to happen, but locking people up in an ƒMRI for the entirely of belief-forming that can take quite long it's going to be practical. And to some extent, even if/when those devices become tiny and portable, you can only see where it happens - that doesn't necessarily tell you (why or) how it happens _like_ that.
Granted to all of that.
But the reason I'm excited about the progress happening with the neuroscience of religion (not just *adoption* but continued *adherence* to beliefs) is that once we know the exact mechanism and process by which a person chooses emotional satisfaction from sticking with happy memories vs embracing the new and unknown based on objective evidence, then we can explore how to shape experiences scientifically so that people can be incentivized to think rationally. Taken to the next level, we could develop a cure for irrationality!
i love how you updated your avatar with a beard
I don't think Durkheim can really account for religion either, though. Religion is not just a communal experience; in some ways it is deeply individual. Durkheim certainly explains much of how organised religion and religious communities develop, but he doesn't have any way to account for religious Inspiration, which often flies directly in the face of organised religion. The basic intuitions that often guide religion do seem to have something more than a purely social origin.
If he's correct, that explains inspiration as a simple epiphany. Your imaginary friend gave you really good advice, in other words. It's a moving experience to hear the ultimate knowledge from the ultimate boss of the universe, and you just happen to be his best friend.
👏
@@haywardjeblomey6505 But Durkheim doesn't really have any way of accounting for epiphany, that's the problem. Structuralism can only account for what we do with epiphany (viz. interpreting it within a religious framework). It's reductive to suggest that religion comes about as the result of social interaction and the creation of community when there are clear counterexamples. I'd posit that it's actually more hylomorphic, with both upward and downward causality.
@@Salsmachev You don't know where epiphany comes from? It comes from memory (experience) and the processing of those memories through other emotional states. One can never come to the correct conclusion if they don't have the experience of knowing the proposition, for example.
@@haywardjeblomey6505 I don't think we actually have any substantive disagreement here. Epiphanies, according to your explanation of them, are not consistent with a wholly structuralist/Durkheimian account of religion.
Oh! This was very interested! I myself have no actual knowledge in regards to the cognitive sciences inspired religious studies field, this has been very fun to watch.
An excellent video as always! I love how you're able to explain things in an understandable way for the general public without sacrificing the complexity of these topics. Usually people on youtube focus just on one side of the argument, but you always give an explanation of both sides, even in such a short video. I really appreciate all the work you do!
People who have never had a paranormal experience cannot fathom what it's like to have one. I can tell you from years of experiences that these phenomena exist. I consider myself an educated person, a pretty rational one at that (and, no, I do NOT do drugs). My encounters with the paranormal on numerous occasions rocked me to the core, and made me realise that whatever I was denying existed is not only real but quite earth-shattering. My whole outlook on this subject has completely turned my world upside down.
What did you experience exactly if I may ask, and how did you come into the conclusion that it’s paranormal?
Check the wires in your house
As an atheist who tried a catholic prayer practice, I have this hunch that there is utility in relating to the chaos of the world in an anthropomorphized manner. It felt strangely natural and it kind of made it easier to pay attention to subtle "responses of the world" to your own actions.
I think that's such an interesting overlap between pareidolia and confirmation bias, because it only appears once you prime yourself to look for these communications. You see a similar pattern with the concepts of synchronicity and manifestation.
Loved this video! Could you do a video on the history of marriage in religion? I read an article for my sociology class that claims for the first 500-1000 years of Christianity the religion rejected the concept as "tainted and secular," and didn't adopt it as sacrament until 1215. I don't know if there is any truth to this, but I thought you might have some knowledge on the subject. Thanks!
I love this theory because I'm a simultaneously spiritual and highly analytical person.
You will love Dr Jordan Peterson's videos
What does it mean, that you are spiritual?
@@cristobalrojas3712 yea, if you want to fall down a reactionary rabbit hole
how is it possible?
@@wendbnew u have a connection with the unseeable forces
This channel is a real gem!
I find that psychologists and other scientists often overlook aspects of culture which are integral to understanding things like religion. This is why it's important for people discussing these theories to be deeply grounded in religious studies and history more generally. I'm glad you pointed to that in this video
Psychology isn't the science that has traditionally accounted for culture and religion. In fact, clinical psych has had to find ways of accommodating things like cultural norms in a fairly ad hoc manner in more recent decades.
But in practice, a good clinical psychologist will handle those issues well as part of cultural competency.
That said, the psychology of religion is a valuable research area into itself which I personally feel is ripe for some major new research developments.
We live in a model of the outside universe we build in our minds, like a mini-matrix. Of course we see personality. We're seeing our own egos.
I also wonder how this theory might relate to the tendency for young children to invent "invisible friends" or pretend that their stuffed animals and dolls have personality and are talking to them and the children talk to these inanimate objects? Basically, belief in invisible supernatural beings (spirits, ghosts, gods, angels, demons...) is an extension of the tendency of young children to have "invisible friends". Freud's theory holds that this is exactly what is going on: belief in a god is an "infantile neurosis" - adults acting like children, being attached to God as an invisible friend. So, question of cause and effect: is the idea of God merely an extension of the childhood tendency to invent imaginary friends? Or do chidren "invent" these imaginary friends because the mind of a child actually is more open to perceiving the real existence of these invisible beings? Might it be that religious skeptics lose this childlike innocence due to an overly logical mind?
Honestly I think I can actually invent an invisible friend if I like. I also already tend to have conversations with my self.
I've heard of this one before
I liked your retelling of the lesson
I also liked your personal touch, as you mention your own persuasion that Religion is a social construct.
Good to enter the dirt and stake your own claim!
Great channel, definitely deserves more subscribers.
Here are my views on what you said. I agree with you that HADD isn't the end of the story but it definitely is an important part. I think HADD + Abstract Thinking, together with some other social facts (like social identity) can easily explain how religions can develop.
Brilliant! This is a deep and useful subject for all of our species. Excellent job, I would love to see videos with further research
This is awesome!!!
Thanks so much for exploring religion in the mind as well as in the brain.
I hope you'll find a way to BRIDGE the social and hard sciences to show where in the brain and in the genes our loyalty to community, rituals, etc. play out.
Eg., amygdala and DRD4 gene.
I can't find the original source, but I recall seeing an article that said that organized religions tend to form when the population of a group exceeds one million people. This would seem to fit with the social aspect proposed here.
I mean the first organised religions that we have evidence for came about in cities with populations between ten and twenty thousand, so a million seems rather too high a number
Love the deviation into neurotheology! Hope to see more :)
Btw how’s the Shinto videos coming along?
Great work! It shows you enjoy what your doing.
I'm just gonna put this out there I swear my cat is plotting against me but then again I might just be anthropomorphising her actions :P
You are wrong. She is gatamorphing YOUR actions. She beleives that you are thinking and reasoning.
Your cat is plotting against you.
Nah, cats are evil. You're not paranoid, she is out to get you 😂
haha.
These actually sound like 2 different things. Like when people do stuff together in a community with a sense of belonging. That would be interesting to study biologically because it can happen even in the absence of belief in the supernatural.
Maybe as humans moved into settlements in the Neolithic, those cultural methods slowly changed from fear of predators to storytelling which was passed down over the millennia. Pantheons usually reflect the social status of society. So if you have a hunter-gatherer tribe of a couple dozen people, spiritualism might make sense; likewise, if you have a budding empire from a city-state with a king, it makes sense that the gods would have particular identities with control and hierarchy. This would also explain the slow formalization and stratification seen in religions and the usage of kings to represent themselves as divine as they likened themselves to gods.
2:45 Specifically, "jumpy, superstitious" hominids survived more often than "rational, atheist" hominids.
8:02 Meld superstition with a social creature that has a brain with a *lot* of interconnections and religion is one of the things that emerge?
Hypothesis: Religion began as a recursive psychosocial phenomena starting with HADD in a small group of humans, but continued into cultural learning mechanisms when these humans taught other humans, like their children, which evoked HADD and informed how later humans experience and understand it.
Transferred or was connected from threat detection to anthropomorphizing via placation behavior- leaving or offering a predator meat to avoid becoming its prey. This relationship influences the CLMs of the society, and is anthropomorphized as rational behavior on the part of the predator since it appears to be following a social construct like trade. This again enters the CLMs and the idea of placating or bargaining with other HADD instances not so directly attributed to predators begins to manifest in the psychological conditioning of the society.
As a curious coincidence (Or maybe not), the analogy of the ghost being the coats' rack is very similar to a Buddhist one. This one is about being in a house without light and seeing a snake on the floor. But you take a candle and see it was just a rope. The analogy is to illustrate that nothing in Samsara can hurt us and hence we are just mistaking a rope with a snake. I am a Buddhist, but i do have to say that if we try to apply this from a secular-practical point of view then it's not only useless, but kinda dangerous. I find that funny.
Are you still Buddhist
Amazing stuff!
Please keep exploring neuroscience and cognitive psychology as it connects with religion. This is exciting!
The big question that arises here is: where in the brain are "Cultural leaning mechanisms" happening?
Also, agency detection might explain *adoption* of religious beliefs, but what about *maintaining* religious beliefs and doubling down when presented with conflicting evidence? How do the social sciences explore adherence and submission to group think? In neuro, it's all about the power of the amygdala.....
Thanks again!
I'm not very religious but the Lord's prayer helps me calm down when my anxiety is at its worse. It is very interesting how that is hard wired into my inner self. Probably has something to do with me learning it as a child and me finding comfort in it now that I'm older. Either way I'm glad it works when I need it the most.
i love that for u
Same here!
That’s like with me and the Shema.
I just realize watching this video that Creepy Pasta is the "modern" way in which we (humans) are interpreting the Ghosts, Monsters, Demons & Gods.
Alejandro Guerra Villegas Using Ockham’s razor it’s absurdly unlikely to think every single person who has seen a ghost was mistaken.
It is assumed to be impossible, then other often unlikely explanations are looked for.
@@apersonlikeanyother6895 I'm not saying that Creepy Pasta is a lie, I'm saying it's the modern equivalent to manuscripts from Old Age.
I believe the paintings and other depictions of human/animal beings made by early humans are better explained by trance states, dreams, etc. And I agree with your friend: religion is a complex issue and I believe complex issues have complex origins. Both biological and cultural influences must play a part in it. On a personal note, I anthropologize my computer, and he definitively has a mind of his own. I talk to him often, shout at him and shake my fist at it, but he still does his own thing. Maybe a nice offering would change the tide in my favor? Here's a thought!
Love that you are back doing videos again! Could you please cover the Genetic Fallacy??(Morality defined by genetic adaptation)
I always understood that idea as an explanation of how belief in the supernatural got started, NOT as an explanation of why we have world religions. At best, how we got beliefs in the first gods. Everything after that is clearly a social (and sometimes even intentional) phenomenon, that may get bolstered by the original thing, but involves much more (especially childhood indoctrination).
Though I have to say, arguing that religious people are more likely to make this misattribution is a counter-argument seems to me a bit absurd, as that is exactly what I would expect to see if the theory is correct. People more likely to commit this misattribution would thereby more likely to assume they had found support for their religion, thus making it more likely for them to commit to their religion. Now I wouldn't expect a huge difference there, but that's certainly the result I'd expect.
There's substantial scientific evidence that how religious or spiritual someone or a group is largely boils down to genetics.
Of course culture and upbringing influences what particular religion you tend to believe in, but whether or not a person is religious/spiritual at all mainly comes do to genetics.
There is also a hardwired tendency to discern faces in a jumble of visual features, or even static. It causes us to see patterns, even though we know there is no face and no organization actually present. Look at a cloud, haven't you ever seen a bunny rabbit?
This evolved in the same way as the HADD you mentioned, and is further enhanced by social pressures to see and understand expressions. The "face" of the Man in the Moon is a perfect example, and the Moon was often regarded as a god in early societies. So, there is the mechanism needed to go from fearing sneaky tigers and ghosts to fearing capricious gods.
None of this, however, can disprove the notion that a God actually does exist, and has created a finely tuned Cosmos, designed to evolve intelligent life with religious tendencies.
Actually I first learned the legend of the rabbit on the Moon and for a long time I never saw "the man on the Moon", I used to see a rabbit. The first time I saw a human face on the moon was after a documentary talking about that when I was already an adult.
Now about what you mentioned, I think the HADD is a very poor explanation for the development of beliefs, it could be a factor, but I see things like introspection/meditation and philosophy as something essential for religions, not just giving random names and faces (and that's in addition to the part about social norms already described on the video).
Of course it cannot disprove an unfalsifiable God concept like the one you describe. There is no way to observe a universe and intelligently determine that it isn’t fit for intelligent life, so that isn’t surprising at all for that to be the case.
As always happens, we come up with an explanation for the huge influence religion has besides it not being true, but it still doesn’t matter, because there is always something we cannot explain, isn’t there?
2:40 - There actually is the major downside of just loss of potential energy (your senses & co-ordination device - i.e. your brain, are power hungry). Then you also just have the lack of ability to think of other things. Think of novellists or engineers, etc. going for a walk in the woods to clear their heads or just walk & think. I can easily imagine the probably thousands of times someone has wanted to/just gone to walk in the woods to think through something, from couplings & children & marriages (forced or proposed) to how can I plant my crops better.
Spinoza had a similar theory about organized religion as being caused by improper identification of final causality in natural phenomena. Although Spinoza never implied that judging natural events as having finality is part of some natural human cognitive behavior, he sees it as a vice that ultimately leads to moral servitude.
I think HADD explains the physical basis for religion pretty well, it's a mechanism that became useful for society building reasons and made it more likely that people believe in certain flavours (like personalised gods rather than generic power)
The beard is coming in quite nicely
I know this isn't the point of your videos but I HADD to say it.
So it could be H.A.D.D + Abstract Thinking + Correlation.
I think you missed the bit of social influences.
@@daddyleon I think social influences have become important over time. However, they didn't seem too important in the first religions. For example, the Mesopotamians pretty much thought of themselves made to be the slaves of the gods while the Ancient Egyptian temples were mainly just for the priests. Commoners rarely went to temples. It wasn't like a place of worship of today. On the other hand, it's definitely not just HADD because humans believed objects like the Sun were gods. Sure, the Sun moves around in the sky. However, you aren't going to get a glimpse of the Sun out of the corner of your eye and think it was a person. I think the answer is closer to a little girl talking to a doll like its a real person or even having an imaginary friend. However, I really don't think the social aspect played that large of a role.
@@lukeeckstein3498 Sorry, I don't understand, could try and explain how the Mesopotamian/Egyptian societies didn't influence their citizens while their societies were very different and the people within the societies did share quite some beliefs - ifaik, at least.
@@daddyleon Oh boy, I'm not saying that societies didn't influence their citizens. They certainly did. I'm just saying there wasn't as much of a communal aspect to the religions of the past like there is today. For example, people today might go to church or a bible study. This may give the appearance that communal activity is important in religion. Which it may be today, but not in the past. In ancient Egypt you didn't get people going to the temple every week.
@@lukeeckstein3498 Sorry I still really don't understand. Perhaps it's because I'm not a native speaker? You mean societies that build pyramids and ziggurats weren't really into communal religion? Sure, now we have bible studies, madrassas, etc. But that doesn't mean that society, the 'priestly class', and the zeitgeist explanations for HADD didn't have a major influence.
Great video, 1 disagreement. The theory isn’t really designed to explain how religion works, it only hypothesises towards why religions begin to develop and why there is a notion of the supernatural in human cultures. Expecting the theory to also explain why religion socially operates as it does is like expecting evolution to account for the movement of the planets, then saying evolution has flaws cause it can’t account for elliptical orbits.
Well done, well put, and well, just really interesting. Thank you.
Animals has HADD too, but I don't think they are religious. But we differ from other animals that we have a much deeper understanding of the future and the past, so we can ask ourselfs "What hapens after we died?" etc. Then we make up answers which becomes a part of our culture.
That and the ability to communicate abstract concepts, which I think is the major criterion for culture. AFAIK only orcas can do this outside humans, and the scientific literature describes them as having cultures.
Love you and your channel. Sounds to me that cultural forces amplify the inherent individual HADD neurophysiological tendencies. Greetings from Ireland. ❤️👍🏻👌☘️🇮🇪
A fine video! Excellent introduction to the concept.
I’ve had this question for a while so it’s cool to see it being discussed
Another try at showing why this theory only makes sense in the context of the scientistic belief system:
I did my first programming course in 1968. During my career in the field, I developed a sympathetic understanding of the difference between a machine and the instructions that make it work. Anyone who has stared at a computer screen, trying to figure out how to make the thing do something, will tell you that the machine alone is not sufficient. But you can see in this video that the scientistic belief system does not allow for this. Somehow, if you can point to some part of the machine as being involved in an activity, you have explained how it is performed.
Once you stop doing this, you will see that the amount of programming that exists in living systems is truly phenomenal. For instance, did you know that migratory birds have four different navigation systems, and that the designers of the systems that are used for navigating modern jets can't match their accuracy? Where did this programming come from? The idea that it arose by natural selection from chance mutations is only plausible to those who are deeply ensnared by scientism. Others might think it laughable.
Oh, and the values of a number of astrophysical constants are so uncannily what they need to be for us to be here that physicists have had to invent a by definition unprovable multi universe theory to avoid acknowledging the involvement of a conscious designer, or should I say Designer. And then you could look at the joint probability that life emerged from lifeless chemistry. Rather less than the chance that a single atom could be located in the entire universe. And so on, and so on. It is time to move beyond Darwinism. But it is in the nature of all believers to cling to their beliefs, and to persecute those who try to change them. So we are stuck with videos like this, instead of simply acknowledging the truth. A creator does exist.
Thats actually ret@rded
Thank you. This is a topic I’ve long considered and wondered about. I have my own theories that are too long to express, but it’s good to learn about other people’s concepts.
Trouble with your counter to this theory is it suffers from sample bias. You are more likely to believe what people around you believe because that belief is more common in that area, by definition…
Nah, like most things due to the neuroplasticity of our brains, religion is softwired. Little things are hardwired, like the ability to feel heat, reflexes, nausea, etc...
I have been trying to find a way to say this without people feeling like I am attacking their beliefs. This is very clear. Thank you.
Yeah, I know how you feel. One way to say it diplomatically would be to compare it to love. Loving someone has a neuro-chemical basis too baked into our brain from evolution. But that fact doesn’t negate the meaning and importance in loving someone. Same goes with religion.
@@ReligionForBreakfast it doesnt even negate the existance of objective love or an objective divine/God or anything really.
As someone in the comment section noted, religious beliefs being hardwired inside us coincides with '' intentionality on the part of God to be known by us.''
time stamp 9:00-9:25: that we LEARN to be religious (and more specifically, WHICH religion) clearly is linked to being raised with religion - people do tend to follow the religion that their parents taught them or to not be religious if their parents were not religious. HOWEVER, what might account for the exceptions to this? Especially when those exceptions occur in the same family - e.g. siblings raised the same way with regard to religion who end up going in the opposite direction as adults - they either convert to a religion that is very different from the one they are raised with or those raised with religion, become atheists or those raised without religion have some sort of "conversion experience" that results in them becoming religious.
Also, pareidolia and our ability to have imaginary conversations with others( often times arguments we have in the shower) definitely add to the picture.
i think... both of these theories make an amount of sense, but i don’t think either is the full story. life is hard. i think religion arose because it gave ancient people a way to understand and try to control the chaotic, mysterious, and often dangerous world around them, and because it gave solace and a sense of purpose in times of tragedy. it filled (and still fills) a need, and society and the human brain empowered it.
Many people have HADD these experiences.
I was about to make a bad joke, but i H.A.D.D homework to do
😂😂😂
This theory is based on a distinction between natural and supernatural, as well as knowledge and religion, which in fact are novel western ideas.
Or you're delusional
ALways thought that the need to believe in the afterlife as a way to cope with death anxiety in recently self-aware primitive humas and common practices like talking to the dead after they´ve passed were the "why" and the "how" at the bassis of the formation of early religious rituals and beliefs and the first deities. This video is more about the pre-dispositions that enabled those practices and the creation of deities that would explain forces of nature and random uccurrences. So interesting.
Pattern recognition ability is what helps us do science. But it also makes us incorrectly recognize patterns which don’t even exist.
Wait... At 9:33 is that a random Sikh wearing the Brazilian national soccer team jersey?!
Excellent job and man, you did this 3 years ago... The temporal and amygdala; it sounds like identifying (agency) to mediate a fear, gain control, as you summed up in the beginning. The ability for agency I think is a value free judgement. I mean, would our neurology be particular whether you imagine someone behind a tree or a god in the sky? Great examination... Thank you
I think the origin of religion has everything to do with what makes us different to other animals. Because while intelligent animals like dogs may have HADD and societal cues/obligations, they don’t have art or religion. What exactly makes us different from animals that allows us to think abstractly?
@Magdalena Ray We simply have the brainpower for it, and the parts of our brains handling rational decisions have become proportionally larger relative to the rest of the brain. Complicated language probably led to our ability to think abstractly too as we needed to think in those terms more and more to communicate efficiently. Needing to convey future events and hypotheticals let us think in those terms too.
I live in New Orleans and Practice Voodou, I'm looking forward to your videos about the Orisha and Lwa at some future point.
Gosh we've come a long way since Gordon Childs. Thanks for the upload.
I think that to anthropomorphize natural phenomena was their scientific approach to stuff. e.g. Violence is like tiger, must beware of tiger, must beware of tiger in people (violence in people). Tiger as a 'god' would be actually a way of thinking of "a natural principle not binded by tiger..". I think the spiritual is a model for similarities between observable phenomena.
A second step towards religion/mysticism would be: e.g. there is a tiger person (violence) principle around there. It is not bound by an object, by people or animal. It can manifest when you least expect (a tree falling over someone and killing). Let's friggin respect 'tiger person' (let's beware of violence)
Excellent insights! Thanks!
My question now, is where do these impulses / needs / decisions take place within the brain!
I want to see a timeline of which areas are stimulated in which order, to get an understanding of the true difference between the believer and the skeptic.
This is such a Materialist & Empiricist Viewpoint
I was just listening to Daniel Kahneman cite the theory of biologically wired religion tendencies in Thinking, Fast and Slow last week. Thanks for giving this idea some more context!
this explains conspiracy theories too. whether there is a hardwired tendency to assemble cognitive perceptions into complex structures (early Chomsky), this is how language is learned - and religion is encoded in language. as we are increasingly isolated from actual natural threats, the mind wanders....
Religion is nothing more than the human desire to explain the unexplainable and find reason and meaning in our existence.
Great topic and I really appreciate it.
Psychology and Religion - two areas which need to mix more.
Alicia Tur How so?
Orthodox Christian here: I am sure that a lot of religious experiences are of psychological and evolutionary nature, but however our faith is not built on that. There’s quite a considerable difference between what I sometimes experience during prayer or liturgy and what my faith is built upon
TLDW: "God is a jumpscare."
... that ♪♪♪loooves♪♪♪ you!
time stamp 7:45-8:00: Problem of cause and effect: which came first?
(sorry for all the multiple comments. This one really got me thinking!)
It's good to know about this theory, because it makes sense in a way, even though doesn't hold much water... Creates a really great discussion!
I wouldn't say it "doesn't hold water" he even quotes a colleague "it is important for the history of religion [...]". I'd rather say it explains the origin of the tendencies (a framework of sort) that "are made use of" later during cultural interactions to conceive of gods we traditionally find in religions.
it's dark when i go by bicycle to work every morning. and today i saw at least three people on the road. they turned out to be a shrub, a switch board, and a garbage bin. But for a split second they me brain saw them as human figures, and drew my attention to them. this was H.A.D.D in action and i think the darkness supercharged it so conclusions about what shapes in the dark were was made before i had time to analyze them
"Savages" was not racist in Darwin's time. It just meant humans who lived in the wild.
It held undertones of imperialism as well as racial and cultural superiority - he was less racist than most for his day but he was a product of his time and, as such, used the language and concepts of his time. It doesn't make him a bad person, just like our subconscious acceptance of our societies' norms doesn't necessarily make us bad though our culture will outgrow them as we understand them better.
I'm not an expert on 19th century terminology but was it not the case that the term "Savages" had negative connotations? In his time it definitely wasn't seen as "racist" since the negativity that we associate with such thinking hadn't gained as much traction as it does now. Looking back at the usage of this terminology, it's pretty clear that it was used in many racist contexts.
@@azn3000 There was at least one very popular book glorifying savages (forgot the title). Yes they thought that they needed they souls to be saved, but many admired that lifestyle.
@@attentatdefecitdisorder4348 I didn't say he was not racist, just that the term "savage" was not pejorative.
@@betepolitique4810 I'm saying that it was. It absolutely was. Not as much, or in the same way, but it definitely was.
Edit: The French use of the term had fewer negative connotations, this might be the source of confusion.
Well done. 1 Thought:
H.A.D.D. with regards to the predators hinges on the fact that there were actual predators. The hyperactivity is caused by previous real and dangerous experiences.
For it to be applied to "seeing gods everywhere", there must have been a real and dangerous "god-experience" to begin with or do they mean to say the lack of a predator then caused the believe in some other invisible "agent". This is then nothing more than the so-called "god-of-the-gaps" theory. I'd rather consult C.G.Jung (evolutionary Psychologist!!) on all of this.
Take his example of when the wind blows open a door and someone assuming it is a person opening the door. The threat is not real but the person perceives it as a threat or at least as another person.
Apply this logic to ancient peoples, many of whom had very little to no understanding of natural phenomenons, and you can see how these superstitions arise.
Religions can come about later as groups form and beliefs about these occurrences are shared. These groups developed various ways to combat and petition to these perceived humanlike threats, one common example being animal sacrifice.
@@whatwecalllife7034 So it's basically the "god-of-the-gaps" theory, except that it's linked to a "predator awareness" in animals, not explaining how the "awareness" of a possible predator turned into the "awareness" of a god. It could maybe lead to "awareness" of a devil: fear caused by the imitation of predators, or fear itself. That makes sense, a devil-of-the-gaps theory. The definition of the devil becomes... wait for it... ignorance.
@@ABird971 Where in there did you see anything about "god of the gaps"? Where in there did I mention anything about "predator awareness"?
What about what I typed was unclear for you?
@@whatwecalllife7034 If I understood you correctly you just tried to reiterated the H.A.D.D. idea the way you understood it. Do you know the "god-of-the-gaps" theory? What you said is nothing more than that. I think H.A.D.D. is trying to make clearer, the connection between the "god-of-the-gaps" theory and evolutionary psychology. But like ReligionForBreakfast, I don't buy it. Also: the assumption that ancient people had "little to no understanding of natural phenomenons", is a fallacy. Rather modern-day city people have little- to no understanding of natural phenomenA. Evolutionary psychology has come much further than these kindergarten ideas. ;)
@ABird971 We developed hyperactive agent detection because of predators. Then, we detected agents way more than necessary, including to explain natural phenomena, which led to gods.
It was still an evolutionary advantage overall, just with an additional side effect that didn’t really hurt us that much when we made our gods bigger and bigger to fit with any reality.
I honestly cannot see how both theories couldn't be complementary: HADD as a primitive cause, and culture learning mechanisms as a group response.
”The first man was foremost humble when he created the flute. The music that come out of it he didn’t want to attach to himself. For he wasn’t himself at that time. He only was. So when the listeners asked him “who created that music? It was wonderful!” He answered “ it was not me who made it. It was something else. Someone else come inside me. It was god.””
I think reducing religion to just names and faces is an error, so HADD is a very poor explanation. Not just because the social aspect explained in the video but also because philosophy and meditation(praying is considered one form of meditation) are important parts of any religion and cannot be explained by HADD (if anybody thinks praying is just asking the gods for favors, that totally misses the point).
I think HADD may have contributed to giving faces to the and personalities to the deities or other mythological creatures, but that's just like the facade of religions, not the essence.
I don't think it matters that HADD doesn't explain religious philosophy because philosophy is a different activity that often doesn't have anything to do with religion. It makes perfect sense that, once religion came into being, it became a topic of discussion by philosophers (just like everything else), and that some philosophers integrated religion into their philosophy since it was so important to them or tried to use philosophy to justify their religion.
However, I think you are right that HADD doesn't explain where meditative practices come from. They seem to be central aspects of pretty much every religion, so a good theory of where religion comes from should explain them as well. There is most likely no single psychological or sociological cause that can explain why religion exists - it comes from a combination of factors.
Praying is considered meditation to those that never receive answers...
I don't think the counterpoint studies hold water in this scenario. Modern people are indoctrinated with a "placeholder religion" of materialism and logical explanations for phenomena from an early age. Prehistoric people did not have this modern cultural tradition.
Besides, just because the details of a religious tradition need to be taught, it doesn't follow that religion is wholly taught as a behavior. HADD stands as a clue that the brain has mechanisms eager to participate in a religious practice, mechanisms that existed for a very long time. Whether these mechanisms are responsible for the emergence of early religion or not, it does suggest that the human brain is indeed "hardwired" for religion in a real sense.
I think this has to do more with our ability to see patterns rather well and an imagination rooted in our frame of reference/circumstance/situation as well as learned beliefs/ideas. So I agree.
I know that's it's a baseless assumption but religions have only been observed and practiced by humans, and they develop as civilizations do. I don't know, wouldn't make it easy to say that the more advanced civilization is, the more religion is very integral to it?
(Although the term religion is loosely defined and interpreted.)
My personal theory addendum:
One thing that is missing here is that while humans have a tendency to attribute agency and anthropomorphize random occurrences, animals definitely do have agency. While not necessarily thinking like us, we still attribute them our own ways of thinking. The first religious practices were probably related to interacting with these animals in a generalized, abstract manner to get the outcome we wanted. Like trying to appease the spirit of the horse so that it would allow our hunters to catch horses.
Since humans tend toward positive correlation becoming causation, people naturally decided that these rituals work as advertised, and so it became socially acceptable, even expected to do them. With time, this has been slowly expanding to give socially accepted agency to more abstract phenomena and creating rituals to engage in social conduct with them.
There is an old theory that cave paintings were a form of ritual intended to show the desired outcome of an action and by that make it more likely to succeed. Obviously this is a big generalization, but perhaps some of them actually were a form of influencing these unseen agents.
Fascinating, thank you!
I think there is a bit of equivocation going on. Two different questions are being explored:
1. What is the best predictor of individual, specific religious beliefs? (culture, duh!)
2. Why do religions tend to develop among groups of people? (HADD seems like a good candidate)
We also anthropomorphize the theory of evolution. When people describe the mechanics of the theory, the rhetoric many people use implies intentionality.
I like your job. Really.
This reminds me of Theo Jansen, a kind of contemporary Da Vinci, who makes wind powered walking machines out of pvc pipe structures. The randomness of the wind creates the illusion that those machines have agency, that they walk or stop on their own will, it's easy to adopt the utterly irrational idea that they're living beings.
This is a very interesting analysis of the phenomenon, but I think in addition to mentioning the influence of people around us, there is an important factor not to forget and it's the way young people in many conservative religious societies having their minds "programmed" to record and register religious formulas and apply them robotically at a very early age. These young people, develop that religious robotic attitude all throughout their life and it becomes as something difficult to get detached from. But indeed some will succeed to do so. I read an article once about how professionals in scientific fields could still have religious reflexes and beliefs in religious societies that contrast and contradict their rational daily work and expertise. It seems as if the emotional side of the brain was trained at an early age to register and defend emotional formulas independently from the rational side? The way religious people act and defend emotionally their faith feels to me more like when someone is blindly in love. The difference is that its a long consistent state of being in love? Could it be that this is more responsible for the perseverance of religious beliefs than the interesting and reasonable mentioned factors?
Shalom, Aure!
Hello sir. Please make a video on why our ancestors pray or pay tribute to some unknown powers they felt that are above them.. Thanks 😊
Great channel!